OTROS RIESGOS SIGNIFICATIVOS

In this section of the epistle, Jude describes the arrogance of the false teachers who reject authority and revile what they do not understand; Michael, by contrast, serves as an example of humility: ‘But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slander against him, but said, The Lord rebuke you!’ The use of apocryphal material here in v. 9 is less striking than in vv. 14-15, in that Jude neither names his source nor quotes directly from it.44 _{Whereas the}

content of Enoch’s prophecy has plenty of biblical parallels, however, the dispute between Michael and Satan is not recorded elsewhere in Scripture. The Jewish text behind Jude 9 is not extant in sixteenth- century Europe; at most, its existence could be deduced from patristic authors such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

Because Jude 9 is seen as the ¿rst use of extra-biblical tradition in the epistle, it sometimes provides a locus for discussion of Jude’s use of apocryphal sources in general. Bullinger provides a number of explanations for Jude’s use of the Apocrypha in his commentary on v. 9 and then refers the reader back to this section when he reaches vv. 14-15.45 _{Erasmus, believing that Jude 9 and Jude 14-15 are both cited}

from the book of Enoch, also addresses both cases of apocryphal citation together, in his annotation on v. 9; in his annotation on v. 14,

43. For the reception history of the Ascension of Moses in early modern Europe, see Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, pp. 87ff. For the late medieval and early modern reception of traditions concerning Moses and Michael, see A. Graupner and M. Wolter (eds.), Moses in Biblical and Extra-biblical Traditions (BZAW, 372; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), esp. J. Muddiman, ‘The Assumption of Moses and the Epistle of Jude’, pp. 169-80. See also R.F. Johnson, Saint Michael the Archangel in Medieval English Legend (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell, 2005). 44. The standard medieval commentary on Jude does not name an apocryphal source for Jude 9. After admitting that ‘(f)rom which scripture Jude obtained this testimony is not obviously clear’, Bede expounds this verse by referring to ‘something similar’ in Zechariah (3.2). Comm. Jude 9 (PL 93:126B; trans. Peter R. Jones, The Epistle of Jude as Expounded by the Fathers—Clement of Alexandria, Didymus of Alexandria, the Scholia of Cramer’s Catena, Pseudo-Oecumenius, and Bede (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 2001), p. 116.

he adds merely: ‘it is added from the Apocrypha, just like that concerning Michael’.46

Sixteenth-century commentators on Jude 9 do not overlook its biblical roots and parallels. Three biblical loci are repeatedly identi¿ed. First, Michael’s words (‘The Lord rebuke you’) clearly echo Zech. 3.2. Erasmus in his annotation on this verse immediately calls this parallel to mind: ‘We read something similar in Zechariah, “The Lord rebuke you, O Satan; the Lord which has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you”’.47 Calvin observes similarly, ‘What Michael is related by

Jude to have said, is also found in Zechariah’. Secondly, Michael’s role as Satan’s adversary is, as Calvin notes, ‘nothing new’.48 _Lefèvre

expounds Jude 9 by noting biblical references to Michael, ¿rst in the Apocalypse of John (12.7) and then in Daniel (10.13).49 _Ridley

likewise cites the Apocalypse of John, stating his opinion that the great battle in heaven (Rev. 12.7) between Michael and the dragon was none other than the dispute over the body of Moses, mentioned by Jude.50 _{Thirdly, Jude 9 is closely connected to Deuteronomy 34, which}

records how Moses died and was buried by the Lord in an unknown place. A number of interpreters—Luther, Cajetan, Bullinger, Calvin, Ridley—posit that Moses’ grave was hidden so that his body might not become an object of idolatry; the dispute between Michael and Satan was thus occasioned by Satan’s desire to show Moses’ body to the Jews.51

46. ‘Id ex Apocryphis adductum est, ut & illud de Michaele’. Erasmus, Annota- tions (1516), p. 775.

47. ‘Similis locus est apud Zachariam prophetiam, capite tertio…’ Erasmus, Annotations (1516), p. 775. Erasmus is here citing Jerome’s Apology against Ru¿nus 18, in which Jerome, quoting a letter by Origen, notes Jude 9 and Zech. 3.2 as parallel texts.

48. Comm. Jude 9 (OE XX:381; CNTC 3:329). 49. Lefèvre, Comm. Jude 9, p. 73b.

50. ‘…the battel of which it is here spoken was of the bodi of Moyses whiche the deuel wolde haue had worshipped…’ Ridley, Comm. Jude 9, E6b-E7a.

51. Luther considers that Deut. 34 gave rise to this ‘example’; Comm. Jude 9 (WA 14:79-80; LW 30:206-207). Cajetan, Comm. Jude 9, p. 400a; cf. Comm. Genesis 34, in Commentarii illustres planeque insignes in Quinque Mosaicos libros (Paris: Guillaume de Bossozel, 1539), p. 534: ‘…ob hanc enim causam occultum fuisse corpus mosis insinuat iudas in canonica epistola, dicendo michaelem archangelum certasse cum diabolo in corpore mosis’. Bullinger, Comm. Jude 9, p. 149. Calvin, Exposition Jude 9 (CO 55:511; Dennison, p. 9) and Comm. Jude 9 (OE XX:381;

Even as they note these biblical roots and parallels, early sixteenth- century interpreters also acknowledge that this incident is not found elsewhere in Scripture. As Catharinus observes, ‘He [Jude] tells a story, which is not read in the scriptures’.52 _{A number of interpreters}

are content to note that this dispute between Michael and Satan is not recorded in Scripture without identifying its source or assigning it to an apocryphal book. Luther takes this line, opening his exposition of Jude 9 by stating, ‘This is one reason why this letter was rejected in times past; for it refers to an example not recorded in Scripture’.53

Tyndale observes merely that Jude ‘allegeth scripture that is nowhere found’.54 _{Ridley, whose exposition of Jude likewise borrows from}

Luther, writes: ‘This place of Jude is a straunge and rare place scarce was found in any other place in Scripture’.55

Most commentators, however, express or take note of the opinion that Jude 9 was drawn from an apocryphal book or collection of books and that it reÀects a Jewish text or tradition. Erasmus states this view unequivocally in his 1516 Annotations, both in the main text (‘the place which Jude cites here is taken out of the Apocrypha of the Hebrews’) and in the marginal note.56 His brief comment on v. 14 also

con¿rms this conclusion: ‘This was added from the Apocrypha, as well as that of Michael’ (i.e. v. 9).57 _{Lefèvre suggests that Jude 9 is}

taken out of ‘some book belonging to the Hebrews’, which was non- canonical but known and used at the time.58 _{Cajetan observes that ‘it is}

not known where Jude became acquainted with this dispute’, adding,

CNTC 3:329). Ridley, Exposition, E6a-E6b; Ridley also cites Num. 12.6-8, which mentions the unique place which Moses held before God.

52. ‘Narrat historiam, quae non legitur in scripturis’. Catharinus, Comm. Jude 9, p. 645.

53. WA 14:79.25-6; LW 30:206. Cf. Enarrationes, V1. See also the brief note on Jude penned by Luther’s colleague Viet Dietrich, in Annotationes Compendiariae In Novum Testamentum (Frankfurt, 1545), p. 240: the story of Michael the Archangel and the saying/quotation of Enoch are not found anywhere in the Sriptures (‘Historia de S. Michaele Archangelo, & sententia Enoch, nusquam in scripturis reperiuntur’). 54. Prologue, Tyndale’s New Testament, pp. 361-62.

55. Ridley, Comm. Jude 9, E5a.

56. ‘Porro locus quem hic citat Iudas, sumptus est ex apocryphis Hebræorum’; marginal note: ‘Citatur locus ex apocryphis’. Erasmus, Annotations (1516), p. 775. 57. ‘Id ex apocryphis adductum est, ut & illud de Michaele’. Erasmus, Annotations (1516), p. 775.

58. ‘…ex aliquo libro apud Hebraeos non apocrypho, sed trito & manifesto…’ Comm. Jude 14-5, p. 74b.

‘there is no lack of those who say that it is taken out of the apocrypha of the Hebrews’.59 _{Reformed exegetes likewise identify Jude’s source}

as apocryphal or non-canonical. Bullinger states, ‘certainly those (things) he added about the dispute of the angels over the body of Moses, he cited out of the Apocrypha’.60 _{Pellikan opens his exposition}

of Jude 9 by observing that Jude has drawn this example from the non-canonical stories or histories of the Jews.61 _{Calvin in his Exposi-} tion admits, ‘It is plausible that this story had been drawn from some

book of scripture, which however we do not have in use today’.62 In

both Exposition and commentary, however, he prefers a second explanation, namely, that Jude 9 is drawn from Jewish oral tradition.63

Of the interpreters surveyed here, only Erasmus puts a name to Jude’s apocryphal source in v. 9. This identi¿cation is not made on the basis of any textual discoveries; rather, it reÀects closer study of the church fathers. In the 1527 Annotations, Erasmus adds a cross- reference to Origen’s On First Principles 3: Origen, citing a place from ‘this little book’ (i.e. Jude’s apocryphal source), indicates that it is taken from the ‘Ascension of Moses’.64 _{Erasmus adds, however, that}

‘the true title is Enoch; he [Origen] himself cites (it) in book 4[.35]’.65

In the later sixteenth century, beyond the limits of the present study, the source for Jude 9 is more clearly identi¿ed. The work of Sixtus of

59. ‘Vnde autem Iudas hanc altercationem nouerit, nescitur. Non desunt tamen qui ex apocryphis Hebraeorum sumptam dicant’. Cajetan, Comm. Jude 9, p. 400a. 60. ‘Quae vero adduxit de Disceptatione angelorum super cadaure Mosis, citavit ex Apocryphis’. Bullinger, Comm. Jude 9, p. 149.

61. ‘Ex non canonicis Iudeorum historiis Iudas hic trahit exemplum…’ Pellikan, Comm. Jude 9, p. 792.

62. ‘Il est vray semblable que ceste histoire ait esté amenée de quelque livre de l’Escriture, lequel toutesfois nous n’avons auiourd’huy en usaige’. Exposition Jude 9 (CO 55:511).

63. Exposition, Jude 14-15 (CO 55:513; Dennison, p. 11); Comm. Jude 14-15 (OE XX:385; CNTC 3:332).

64. In De principiis 3.2.1, Origen refers to the Ascensio Mosis, ‘of which little book the apostle Jude makes mention in his epistle’. Cf. Ru¿nus’s translation (SC 268, p. 152), cited by Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, p. 274: ‘Et primo quidem in genesi serpens Evam seduxisse perscribitur: de quo serpente in Ascensione Moysi, cujus libelli meminit in epistola sua apostolus Judas, Michahel archangelus cum diabolo disputans de corpore Moysi ait a diabolo inspiratum serpentem causam extitisse praevaricationis Adae et Evae’.

65. ‘Quanquam Origenes ʌİȡȓ ȐȡȤȦȞ tertio, citans locum ex eo libello, subindicat fuisse conscriptam de ascensione Mosi, titulo vero Enoch: ipse citat libro quarto’. Erasmus, Annotations (1527), p. 775.

Siena, a Jewish convert to Roman Catholicism, should be noted; in his entry on ‘Mosis Ascensio’ in Bibliotheca Sacra, he identi¿es this book as that from which the apostle Jude cites the testimony concern- ing Michael and his dispute with Satan.66 _{He goes on to list patristic}

witnesses to this book, including Origen, Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, and Athanasius, noting that it is also called the Assump-

tion or Testament of Moses.